M/S.redington Distribution Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai Room

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.10.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.Nos.12203, 12210, 12214, 12206 & 12209 of 2020and WMP.Nos.14959, 14951, 14961, 14947, 14953,14954, 14962, 14958, 14965 & 14967 of 2020 M/s.Redington Distribution Pvt. Ltd.,No.60 Robinson Road,#12-02, BEA Building,Singapore 068892,Rep. By its Director,Raj Shankar.. Petitioner in all WPs Vs. 1.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai Room No.409, 4[th] Floor, No.16, BSNL Building, Tower-I, Greams Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 006. 2.The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore Kendriya Sadan, 4[th] Floor, Koramangala, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 034. .. Respondents in all WPs Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus to call for the records of the Petitioner on the fileof the 1[st] Respondent/AO and quash the impugned order passedu/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144C(3) dated 27.02.2020 for theassessment years 2012-13, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively in PAN No: by the 1[st] Respondent andconsequently direct the 2[nd] Respondent/DRP to dispose theobjections filed on 28[th] January 2020 on merits in the mannerlaid down by the provisions of Section 144C of the IT Act,1961. For Petitioner : Mr.Vijayaraghavan (In all Cases) for Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan (In all Cases) Senior Standing Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner has challenged orders of assessment forassessment years (AY) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and2016-17 passed in terms of the provisions of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). The question that has been raisedfor consideration is as to whether the Assessing Officer isright in having passed the impugned orders of assessmentinspite of the assessee having approached the DisputeResolution Panel (DRP) within the time stipulated underSection 144C and merely for the reason that notice, asrequired in terms of Section 144C(2)(b), was not given to theAssessing Officer simultaneous with the filing of theobjections. 2. By order dated 09.09.2020, I had granted an interimstay of recovery pursuant to the impugned orders of assessmentand directed the Senior Standing Counsel, who had acceptednotice on behalf of the revenue, to file a counter. 3. One of the defences taken in the counter is to theeffect that the petitioner has, prior to the filing of thesewrit petitions, approached the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (CIT (A)) by way of statutory appeals challengingthe very same orders of assessment. The revenue would thusargue that the petitioner not be permitted to ride two horsesfor the same relief. It is also pointed out that the affidavitfiled in support of the writ petition does not disclose theaforesaid fact. 4. Admittedly, statutory appeals as aforesaid, have beenfiled and this fact does not find mention in the affidavit.However, as regards the allegation of conscious non-disclosure, learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the affidavits were signed at Singapore even prior to thefiling of the statutory appeals, though the writ petitionswere filed thereafter. The explanation appears plausible andthe omission to mention this fact in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition is thus held to be inadvertent. 4. Admittedly, statutory appeals as aforesaid, have beenfiled and this fact does not find mention in the affidavit.However, as regards the allegation of conscious non-disclosure, learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat the affidavits were signed at Singapore even prior to thefiling of the statutory appeals, though the writ petitionswere filed thereafter. The explanation appears plausible andthe omission to mention this fact in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition is thus held to be inadvertent. 5. Be that as it may, seeing as the petitioner hasalready availed the statutory remedy of appeal, I am notinclined to entertain these writ petitions that challenge thevery same orders of assessment appealed against, as thepresent ground relating to the assumption of jurisdiction ofthe Assessing Officer could well be raised before theappellate authority. In permitting the petitioner to raisethis ground before the CIT(A), I am conscious of the positionthat the powers of the CIT(A) in terms of Section 251 are wideand he/she can, apart from confirming, reducing or enhancingthe demand raised, also annul the assessment which would bethe resultant position, if the argument of petitioner onmerits were to be accepted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. I thus permit the petitioner to file additionalgrounds of appeal on the above aspect of the matter and suchadditional grounds, if and when filed, will be taken up foradjudication along with the appeal in due course. Myobservations in interim order granted on 09.09.2020 atparagraph-3 will not stand in the way of independentapplication of mind by the CIT(A) upon this issue. 7. These writ petitions are dismissed in the aforesaidterms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle-2(1), Chennai Room No.409, 4[th] Floor, No.16, BSNL Building, Tower-I, Greams Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 006. 2.The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore Kendriya Sadan, 4[th] Floor, Koramangala, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 034. +1cc to Mr.Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan , Advocate SR.No. 33636 W.P.Nos.12203, 12210, 12214, 12206 & 12209 of 2020and WMP.Nos.14959, 14951, 14961, 14947, 14953,14954, 14962, 14958, 14965 & 14967 of 2020 A.SK(09/11/2020)